46.

THE TEMPLE MOUNT IN JERUSALEM DURING THE FIRST TEMPLE PERIOD: AN ARCHAEOLOGISTS VIEW
by David Ussishkin
DISCUSSION of the Temple Mount, the royal acropolis and religious center of biblical Jerusalem, is a most difficult task for the archaeologist becauseapart from some initial surveys conducted in the nineteenth centuryhardly any fieldwork could be carried out in the area of the Haram esh-Sherif. However, based on topographical data, circumstantial evidence, archaeological evidence retrieved in other parts of Jerusalem, comparable archaeological material, and finally the data contained in the biblical text, some suggestions concerning the character and history of the Temple Mount during the First Temple period can be crystallized. These suggestions are summarized in the present study, to be published in a book dedicated to Larry Stager, my esteemed colleague and personal friend of many years. Jerusalem of the late eighth century B.C.E., that is, Jerusalem during the reign of Hezekiah and Sennacheribs campaign, is the starting point of our discussion (figure 1). It seems clear that by that time Jerusalem extended over the Southeast Hill, that is the City of David (figure 1:2), as well as over the Southwest Hill (figure 1:6), where the Mishneh quarter was built, thus becoming the largest city in Judah. The city was heavily fortified, and segments of its walls have been uncovered along the eastern slope of the City of David by Kenyon (Steiner 2001:8992), Shiloh (1984:810, 28; figs. 30, 33), and Reich and Shukrun (2000; see also Shanks 1999), as well as further to the north in the area of the Ophel by Eilat Mazar (Mazar and Mazar 1989:1 48). On the Southwest Hill, segments of the fortifications were uncovered in the Jewish Quarter by Avigad (1983:4660; Avigad and Geva 2000; Geva and Avigad 2000), possibly also in Hagai Street by Kloner (1984), and in the Ottoman citadel near Jaffa Gate (Geva 1979; 1983:5658). It can be safely concluded that during this period the Temple Mount formed an integral part of the metropolis and served as the royal acropolis or compound of the kings of Judah. It can also be safely assumed that by that time the Temple Mount was surrounded by a wall that was incorporated into the citys fortifications. The acropolis was situated at the edge of the city, and therefore part of its surrounding wall formed a segment of the city wall, while another part separated the Temple Mount from the City of David and from the Mishneh quarter on the Southwest Hill.

In reconstructing the plan of the royal compound extending over the Temple Mount, all scholars agree that it was smaller than the later Herodian compound, the shape of which is preserved to the present day in the Haram esh-Sherif. Many graphic reconstructions depict the outlines of the rectangular Herodian compound, with the smaller Iron Age compound marked by curving lines inside (e.g., Avigad 1983:58, fig. 36). On the other hand, other scholars, among them Kenyon (1974:11114, fig. 22) and Ritmeyer (1992), believe that the Herodian walls follow, at least in part, the lines of the Iron Age walls, and hence the walls of the earlier compound must have extended in straight rather than curved lines. Wightman (1993:2931) compared the Solomonic compound with that of Omride Samaria (figure 2), also reconstructing its walls in straight lines. Following this line of thought, we can assume that the royal compound of the kings of the House of David in Jerusalem was based in plan and character on the same model as the royal Omride compounds at Samaria (Crowfoot, Kenyon and Sukenik 1942) and Jezreel (Ussishkin and Woodhead 1997:11, fig. 4). These compounds have much in common, thus representing a crystallized model and concept. At both Samaria and Jezreel, the compound was founded on the summit of a hill, with bedrock constituting much of the surface. In both places, the compound is rectangular, surrounded by a casemate wall that was based on bedrock. The lower parts of the casemates served as foundations or revetments, which supported large amounts of soil and debris dumped as constructional fills. Due to the fills, the enclosed area was turned into a rectangular podium, its surface almost horizontal. At Samaria, several buildings were found inside the compound, which also had large open courtyards. The excavations barely touched the inner parts of the Jezreel compound, but it seems to have had similar open spaces. The architectural concept of the compounds at Samaria and Jezreel must have been imported from the north. Similar compounds can be found in Urartian fortresses in eastern Anatolia. A good example is the compound of Lower Anzaf, built by Ishpuini king of Urartu in the ninth century B.C.E. (figure 3; Belli 1999). Rectangular in plan, it forms a horizontal podium based on constructional fills, situated on the summit of the hill.

474

David Ussishkin

Figure 1. Jerusalem during the eighth and seventh centuries B.C.E.a schematic reconstruction
1 Gihon Spring 2 City of David 3 Temple Mount 4 the temple 5 the royal palace 6 Southwest Hill 7 Northwest Hill 8 Northeast Hill 9 Mount of Olives 10 Kidron Valley 11 Hinnom Valley

The Temple Mount in Jerusalem during the First Temple Period

475

Figure 2. A plan of the Omride acropolis in Samaria (after Herzog 1997:230, fig. 5.22)
1 the Ivory House 2 the palace 3 the Ostraca House

Figure 3. Aerial view and plan of the Urartian fortress of Lower Anzaf in eastern Anatolia (after Belli 1999:fig. 1 and pl. 1:4) In Jerusalem, the Temple Mount was surrounded on three sides by a steep slope, but on the northwestern side it was connected by a topographical saddle to the hill running farther to the northwest, known as the Northeast Hill (figure 1:8). This saddle constituted the topographical weak point in the defense of the Temple Mount. Wilson and Warren surveyed the exposed rock surface in this area in 1864, and concluded that a deep ditch was cut at this point into the rock. In their own words: Between the corner and the platform the ridge of Moriah must have been in one place very narrow; and here . . . the rock gives place to turf, and there are other indications which would lead us to believe that there was at one time a ditch cut in the solid rock (Wilson and Warren 1871: 13). Ottosson (1989) and Oredsson (2000:9295) have also recently suggested that a moat was cut in the rock across the saddle in the First Temple period.

476

David Ussishkin This suggestion is based on the location of many palaces of rulers during the Bronze and Iron Ages. In many cities, we find the acropolis built at the edge of the city and the rulers palace built at the edge of the acropolis, for example, at Hittite Hattusha (figure 6), Late Bronze Ugarit and Megiddo, as well as Assyrian Calah, Nineveh, Dur-Sharrukin, Til-Barsib, and Megiddo. There are, of course, other cases, notably Israelite Samaria and Neo-Hittite Zincirli-Samal, in which the acropolis was located in the middle of the city, but in both these cities also, the royal palace was located at the edge of the acropolis. The temple and its suggested reconstruction, analyzed in innumerable studies, will not be discussed here, but the palace warrants a brief description. The magnificent royal palace in Jerusalem, ascribed in the biblical text to King Solomon, is briefly described in 1 Kings 7:112 and can be partly reconstructed on the basis of archaeological comparisons (see Ussishkin 1973; King and Stager 2001:2024). The edifice contained a ceremonial wing, residential quarters, and the house of the Forest of Lebanona separate unit as big as the temple, which probably functioned as the royal treasury. The palace complex was enclosed within its own large courtyard. The large, magnificent ceremonial wing is of special interest. The biblical text informs us that it contained the hall of columns, fifty cubits long and thirty cubits broad, and a hall and columns with a cornice in front of them as well as the hall for the throne, that is, the hall of judgmentthe largest and most luxurious unit in the edifice. The description of the ceremonial wing fits the model of the contemporary Syrian palace type known as b!t "il#ni. A good example can be seen in Tell Halaf, in the rulers palace of Aramean Gozan, dated to the tenthninth centuries B.C.E. (figure 7; see Langenegger et al. 1950). An impressive entrance with a portico led to an entrance hall, that is the hall of columnsthe columns apparently being the columns of the entrance portico. The entrance hall opened to the throne room, the main hall of the edifice, where the throne of the king was placed on a dais built adjacent to one of the side walls. Several archaeological comparisons can be found for details of the biblical descriptions of the throne room. This magnificent hall was paneled in cedar from one side of the floor to the other (1 Kings 7:7). Similar paneling can be seen in the walls of the entrance hall and the throne room of Barrakibs b!t "il#ni palace at Zincirli-Samal, dated to the third quarter of the eighth century B.C.E. (figure 8; von Luschan and Jacoby 1911:299). The magnificent throne, ascribed to Solomon, is described in detail in

The idea of cutting a deep moat in the rock also originates in the north. In Jezreel, three sides of the rectangular compound were protected by a deep, rock-cut moat (Ussishkin and Woodhead 1997:11, fig. 4). There was no need for such a moat on the fourth side, which faced a steep slope. Good comparisons to the assumed moat at the northwestern edge of the Temple Mount can be found in eastern Anatolia. In Van, in the central fortress of the kings of Urartu (figure 4), as well as in the fortress of avu!tepe dated to the seventh century B.C.E. (figure 5), the sausage-shaped fortress was protected by a deep rock-cut moat on both of its ends, separating the fortress from the continuation of the hill. According to the biblical text, the royal acropolis in Jerusalem contained two major buildings, the royal palace and the temple. At the time of its construction, the royal palace was almost certainly the main edifice of the compound, being much larger in size than the temple. In later periods, however, the temple gained in importance, while the royal palace was nearly forgotten. The best comparison to a contemporary temple vis--vis the royal palace is the eighth-century B.C.E. temple of Tell Tayinat in northern Syria, built adjacent to the larger b!t "il#ni palace in the royal acropolis of the kings of Kunulua (Haines 1971:pl. 103). Assuming that the temple stood on the summit of the hill, exactly at the spot where the Dome of the Rock is presently situated (figure 1:4), all scholars reconstruct the royal palace to the south of the temple, where the ground is lower (e.g., Galling 1937: 411; Simons 1952:436; Vincent and Stve 1954:pl. 129; Wightman 1993:31, fig. 9). This reconstruction is based on several indications in the biblical text that one had to ascend from the palace to the temple (e.g., 2 Kings 22:34; Jer. 26:10; 36:1012), and, more importantly, on the references to the royal palace in the descriptions of the rebuilding of Jerusalems city walls in Nehemiah 3:2529 and 12:37. The descriptions of Nehemiahs wall and its relationship to the palace, however, can be interpreted in different ways. In my view, it is reasonable to assume that the palace stood on the lower ground to the north of the temple, an area spacious enough to accommodate such a large complex (figure 1:5). If located to the north of the temple, the royal palace of Jerusalem would have been ideally situated: the royal acropolis of Jerusalem was at the northeastern edge of the city and the palace was at the northern end of the acropolis, adjacent to the edge of the fortified city. This way, the palace would have been more secure and isolated, while if located to the south of the temple, everybody approaching the temple from the direction of the City of David would have had to pass near it.

The Temple Mount in Jerusalem during the First Temple Period the biblical text (1 Kings 10:1820). Almost certainly made of wood, it was lavishly decorated with ivory and gold, and flanked by lions. Similar thrones are portrayed on Canaanite ivories, Assyrian reliefs, and the sarcophagus of Ahiram, king of Byblos (figure 9). Finally, Jeremiah 36:22 informs us that Jehoiakim, king of Judah, sat in the winter house in the ninth month, and there was a fire on the hearth burning before him. The ninth month, that is Kislev, falls

477

about December, in mid-winter, and it is not surprising that a fire was lit in the hearth. Remains of a hearth were found in front of the throne dais in Zincirli, in the palaces of Kilamuwa and Barrakib, kings of Samal (von Luschan and Jacoby 1911:27879, 29698, pl. 49), and a metal brazier, shaped like a cart with wheels, was uncovered in the throne room in the Tell Halaf palace (figure 10; Langenegger et al. 1950:4548, taf. 12).

Figure 4. The Urartian fortress at Van (after Tarhan 1994:fig. 3)

Figure 5. The Urartian fortress at avu!tepe (after Erzen 1988:3, fig. 3)

Each rock-cut moat is marked as ditch.

Figure 6. A plan of Hattusha during the period of the Hittite Empire (after Bittel 1970:26, fig. 3)

478

David Ussishkin

Figure 7. The b!t "il#ni palace at Tell Halaf, plan and reconstruction (after Langenegger et al. 1950:fig. 6 and plan 5) Figure 9. " King Ahiram of Byblos seated on his throne; a relief carved on the kings sarcophagus (after Montet 1928:pl. 131)

# Figure 8. Reconstructed wooden paneling of the walls in Barrakibs

Palace K at Zincirli (after von Luschan and Jacoby 1911:299, fig. 209)

The Temple Mount in Jerusalem during the First Temple Period

479

Figure 10. A cart-shaped metal brazier found in the throne room of the palace at Tell Halaf (after Langenegger et al. 1950:Abb. 15) There is another matter which should be emphasized. In his descriptions of the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., Flavius Josephus twice mentions a place known as the Camp of the Assyrians. The data brought by Josephus is sufficient to identify the site of the Camp of the Assyrians on the Northeast Hill, to the northwest of the Temple Mount (figure 1:8; Ussishkin 1979; 1995:29092). We can safely assume that this place marks the very place where the Assyrian task force sent by Sennacherib to Jerusalem in 701 B.C.E. pitched its camp. A schematic view of such a camp is portrayed in the Lachish reliefs (see Ussishkin 1982:9293, fig. 73). Apparently, the appearance of the Assyrian army at the gates of Jerusalem left a strong impact on the population of the city, and hence the site of the camp retained its name for nearly 800 years. From the Assyrian point of view, the Northeast Hill was the optimal place for pitching the camp. Camping on the spacious summit of the hill, the Assyrian task force faced the Temple Mount extending on lower ground. The presence of the Assyrian army at this place directly threatened the center of the Judean governmentthe royal compound and, in particular, the royal palace, if it were located, as assumed above, on its northern side. The saddle and the area of the assumed moat was the most suitable place for conducting negotiations with Hezekiah, negotiations which eventually resulted in Hezekiahs de facto surrender to the king of Assyria. Once we move backwards from the latter part of the eighth century to the tenth and ninth centuries B.C.E., the archaeological picture becomes problematic and obscure, in particular with regard to the Temple Mount, and the meager archaeological evidence has been interpreted in different ways. Many scholars, for example recently Cahill (2003; 2004), believe that the archaeological evidence al-

lows a reconstruction of the Solomonic city as described in the biblical text. On that basis, as can be seen in various reconstructions, such as those published by Shanks (1995:7475) and Cahill (2004: 22), Jerusalem is shown as sausage-shaped. The city includes the City of David and the Temple Mount, the latter crowned by the prominent building of the temple. Based on 1 Kings 9:15, the city is shown surrounded by a massive city wall. It seems, however, that the archaeological evidence presents a different picture of the Solomonic city (Ussishkin 2003a; 2003b). Intensive and systematic archaeological investigations have been carried out in different parts of biblical Jerusalem for more than 150 years, and sufficient data were recovered to give us some idea of the extent and character of the

Figure 11. Jerusalem during the tenth century B.C.E.: a schematic reconstruction
1 Gihon Spring 2 City of David 3 Temple Mount

480

David Ussishkin by I. Finkelstein, Z. Herzog, L. Singer-Avitz, and D. Ussishkin (2007). Turning back to the problems of the Temple Mount, the above topographical and archaeological data leave us with four options for reconstructing the Temple Mount during the tenth century B.C.E. First option: Based on the proposal of Knauf (2000), the Temple Mount formed the cultic and secular center of the city already during the Late Bronze Age and the earlier part of the Iron Age. However, there are no textual or archaeological indications to support this theory. Second option: Based on the biblical tradition, Solomon built a small, modest temple on the Temple Mount, which formed the basis for later reconstruction and extension of the buildings here. In that case, the large compound and the monumental royal palace were added, and the temple was enlarged or rebuilt, in the eighth century B.C.E., when the Temple Mount was incorporated into the extended city. This is the view of Naaman, who argued that Solomon built a temple on the Temple Mount, though on a much smaller scale than the one built in the late monarchical period (Naaman 1996:23). Third option: The royal acropolis was built as a separate entity by Solomon, as described in the biblical text, and it was incorporated in the expanding city during the late eighth century B.C.E. Fourth option: The royal acropolis was built as described in the biblical text, but in the late eighth century B.C.E., when the modest tenth-century settlement became a large, fortified city and the Temple Mount was incorporated in it. There is one strong argument in support of the first and second options. One would expect the planners of the city to have built the royal compound at the highest and most strategically located place in the city. The northern part of the Southwest Hill (figure 1:6), at an elevation of ca. 773 meters above sea level, is clearly the optimal place for the location of the acropolis, rather than the Temple Mount at ca. 743 meters (figure 1:4). And indeed, during the Second Temple period, the Hasmonean kings, and later Herod, shifted their royal palaces to the Southwest Hill. This is a clear indication that the Temple Mount had already been a significant cultic place before the extension of the city in the eighth century B.C.E., so that the royal acropolis was built at this spot. A similar case can be observed in Hattusha, the Hittite capital (figure 6; see, e.g., Bittel 1970; Neve 1992). Settlement started here in the Early Bronze Age on the hill known as Bykkale. During the Middle Bronze Age, the Lower City was added to the west and northwest, and in this way the Byk-

city during the tenth and ninth centuries B.C.E. The picture is unlikely to change drastically in the future. It appears that the settlement of this period extended solely along the central parts of the City of David (figure 11) and it was not protected by a city wall. The fortifications uncovered near the southeast corner of the Haram esh-Sherif (Mazar and Mazar 1989: 148) date to the eighth and seventh centuries B.C.E. city and not earlier, as recently suggested by Eilat Mazar (2006b) on the basis of the biblical text. In my view, the theory advocated by Kenyon (1974:8183, 8991) and Cahill (2003:2123) that the city wall of the Middle Bronze Age settlement continued to be in use at that time cannot be accepted. Most significant for our discussion are the results of the large-scale excavations carried out by Benjamin Mazar, and later by Eilat Mazar, to the south of the Temple Mount. Only a few pottery pieces earlier than the eighth century B.C.E. were recovered here, out of stratigraphical context (Mazar and Mazar 1989; E. Mazar 2006b:784 and fig. 3), and it seems that the entire area was not settled at that time. A similar, complementary picture is gained from the sifting of earthen fills originating in the southern parts of the Haram esh-Sherif: while later Iron Age pottery is well represented, very few Iron Age handburnished pottery pieces dated to before the eighth century B.C.E., as well as sherds dating to earlier periods, have been recovered here (Barkay and Zweig 2006:21920). It thus appears that the settlement of the United Monarchy period did not reach the Temple Mount. A few words must be added at this point on the enigmatic and unique Stepped Stone Structure, a kind of retaining wall supporting the steep rocky slope above the Gihon Spring and on the underlying terraces. The structure, the underlying terraces, their function and their date, have been extensively studied in recent years (see Shiloh 1984:1618, 29, figs. 16 19; Steiner 2001:3639, 4352; 2003; Cahill 2003: 3354; Finkelstein 2003:8486; A. Mazar 2006). Used and rebuilt for many generations, it seems that this structure or parts of it originates at the end of the Bronze Age and was in use, at least partly, until the Second Temple period. It is usually assumed that the Stepped Stone Structure supported a public building or fort on the summit of the ridge. Recent excavations at this spot by Eilat Mazar revealed substantial structural remains, which she dated to this general period and on the basis of the biblical textidentified as parts of King Davids royal palace (E. Mazar 2006a; see also A. Mazar 2006:26970). Different stratigraphical and chronological conclusions have recently been reached

The Temple Mount in Jerusalem during the First Temple Period kale became the acropolis. Later, during the period of the Hittite kingdom, the city was further extended, and the Upper City was added to the south of the Bykkale and the Lower City. The Bykkale remained the acropolis of the extended city, and here was built the central palace of the Hittite kings, although the southern part of the Upper City was much higher than the Bykkale. The Temple Mount was the religious and political center of the kings of the House of David during the First Temple period. It is a great pity that it cannot be

481

properly investigated archaeologically, although since the Temple Mount was built or destroyed extensively in later periods, it is doubtful whether archaeological investigations could retrieve significant data related to the First Temple period. However, as shown above, it is still possible to reconstruct in part its character and history during this important period.
N.B.: This article is an expanded version of a paper presented in the annual conference of the Society of Biblical Literature in Washington, D.C., in November 2006.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Avigad, N. 1983 Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville, Tenn.: Nelson. Avigad, N., and H. Geva 2000 Iron Age II Strata 97. In Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, vol. 1, Architecture and Stratigraphy: Areas A, W and X-2, Final Report, ed. H. Geva, 4482. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Barkay, G., and I. Zweig 2006 The Project of Sifting Soil from the Temple MountPreliminary Report [in Hebrew]. New Studies on Jerusalem 11:21337. Belli, O. 1999 The Anzaf Fortresses and the Gods of Urartu. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yaynlar. Bittel, K. 1970 Hattusha: The Capital of the Hittites. New York: Oxford University Press. Cahill, J. M. 2003 Jerusalem at the Time of the United Monarchy: The Archaeological Evidence. In Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, ed. A. G. Vaughn and A. E. Killebrew, 1380. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. 2004 Jerusalem in David and Solomons Time. BAR 30/6:2031, 6263. Crowfoot, J. W., K. M. Kenyon, and E. L. Sukenik 1942 Samaria-Sebaste. Vol. 1, The Buildings at Samaria. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Erzen, A. 1988 avu$tepe. Vol. 1, Urartian Architectural Monuments of the Seventh and Sixth Centuries B.C. and a Necropolis of the Middle Age. Publication of the Turkish Historical Society Series 5/37. Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu. Finkelstein, I. 2003 The Rise of Jerusalem and Judah: The Missing Link. In Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, ed. A. G. Vaughn and A. E. Killebrew, 81101. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Finkelstein, I., Z. Herzog, L. Singer-Avitz, and D. Ussishkin 2007 Has King Davids Palace in Jerusalem Been Found? Tel Aviv 34:14264. Galling, K. 1937 Biblisches Reallexikon. Tbingen: Mohr. Geva, H. 1979 The Western Boundary of Jerusalem at the End of the Monarchy. IEJ 29:8491. 1983 Excavations in the Citadel of Jerusalem, 1979 1980: Preliminary Report. IEJ 33:5571. Geva, H., and N. Avigad 2000 Area WStratigraphy and Architecture. In Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, vol. 1, Architecture and Stratigraphy: Areas A, W and X-2, Final Report, ed. H. Geva, 13197. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Haines, R. C. 1971 Excavations in the Plain of Antioch. Vol, 2, The Structural Remains of the Later Phases: Chatal Hyk, Tell al-Judaida, and Tell Tayinat. OIP 95. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Herzog, Z. 1997 Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and Its Social Implications. Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 13. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. King, P. J., and L. E. Stager 2001 Life in Biblical Israel. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox. Kenyon, K. M. 1974 Digging Up Jerusalem. London: Ernest Benn. Kloner, A. 1984 Re$ov Hagay. ESI 3:5759.

482

David Ussishkin
Ritmeyer, L. 1992 Locating the Original Temple Mount. BAR 18/2: 2445, 6465. Shanks, H. 1995 Jerusalem, An Archaeological Biography. New York: Random House. 1999 Everything You Ever Knew about Jerusalem Is Wrong (Well, Almost). BAR 25/6:2029. Shiloh, Y. 1984 Excavations at the City of David. Vol, 1, 1978 1982; Interim Report of the First Five Seasons. Qedem 19. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University. Simons, J. 1952 Jerusalem in the Old Testament: Researches and Theories. Leiden: Brill. Steiner, M. L. 2001 Excavations by Kathleen M. Kenyon in Jerusalem, 19611967. Vol. 3, The Settlement in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Copenhagen International Series 9. London: Sheffield Academic Press. 2003 The Evidence from Kenyons Excavations in Jerusalem: A Response Essay. In Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, ed. A. G. Vaughn and A. E. Killebrew, 34763. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Tarhan, T. 1994 Recent Research at the Urartian Capital Tushpa. Tel Aviv 21:2257. Ussishkin, D. 1973 King Solomons Palaces. BA 36:78105. 1979 The Camp of the Assyrians in Jerusalem. IEJ 29:13742. 1982 The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 6. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University. 1995 The Water Systems of Jerusalem during Hezekiahs Reign. In Meilenstein: Festgabe fr Herbert Donner zum 16. Februar 1995, ed. M. Weippert and S. Timm, 289307. gypten und Altes Testament 30. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2003a Jerusalem as a Royal and Cultic Center in the TenthEighth Centuries B.C.E. In Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Proceedings of the Centennial Symposium, W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and American Schools of Oriental Research, Jerusalem, May 2931, 2000, ed. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin, 52938. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. 2003b Solomons Jerusalem: The Text and the Facts on the Ground. In Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, ed. A. G. Vaughn and A. E. Killebrew, 10315. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Knauf, E. A. 2000 Jerusalem in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages: A Proposal. Tel Aviv 27:7590. Langenegger, F., K. Mller, and R. Naumann 1950 Tell Halaf. Vol, 2, Die Bauwerke. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Luschan, F. von, and G. Jacoby 1911 Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli. Vol. 4. Mittheilungen aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen 14. Berlin: Georg Reimer. Mazar, A. 2006 Jerusalem in the Tenth Century B.C.E.: The Glass Half Full. In Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Naaman, ed. Y. Amit, E. Ben Zvi, I. Finkelstein, and O. Lipschits, 25572. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Mazar, E. 2006a Did I Find King Davids Palace? BAR 32/1:16 27, 70. 2006b The Solomonic Wall in Jerusalem. In I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. A. M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji, 2:77586. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Mazar, E., and B. Mazar 1989 Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount, The Ophel of Biblical Jerusalem. Qedem 29. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University. Montet, P. 1928 Byblos et lgypte: Quatre campagnes de fouilles Gebeil. BAH 11. Paris: Geuthner. Naaman, N. 1996 The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalems Political Position in the Tenth Century B.C.E. BASOR 304:1727. Neve, P. 1992 HattuaStadt der Gtter und Tempel. Antike Welt 23:288. Oredsson, D. 2000 Moats in Ancient Palestine. Old Testament Series 48. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Ottosson, M. 1989 Topography and City Planning with Special Reference to Jerusalem. Tidsskrift for Teologi og Kirke 4:26370. Reich, R., and E. Shukron 2000 Jerusalem, City of David. ESI 112:82*83*.

The Temple Mount in Jerusalem during the First Temple Period

Ussishkin, D., and J. Woodhead 1997 Excavations at Tel Jezreel 19941996: Third Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 24:672.

483

Wilson, C., and C. Warren 1871 The Recovery of Jerusalem: A Narrative of Exploration and Discovery in the City and the Holy Land. London: Richard Bentley. Wightman, G. J. 1993 The Walls of Jerusalem: From the Canaanites to the Mamluks. Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 4. Sydney: Meditarch.

Vincent, L. H., and M. A. Stve 1954 Jrusalem de lAncien Testament: Recherches darchologie et dhistoire. Paris: Gabalda.